THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 69-2015
Date of Institution : 27.1.2015
Date of Decision : 6.11.2015
Sh. Hardeep Singh son of Sh. Jarnail Singh, resident of Gali No. 3, Labh Nagar, Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar ...Complainant
Vs.
Excide Life Insurance (Previously known as ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited) through its MD/Director/Authorized Signatory, National Operations Office, Gold Hill Square, Ist Floor, 690, Hosur Road, Begur Hobli, Bangalore 560068
Excide Life Insurance, (Previously known as ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited) through its Authorized person/signatory having its office at Nagpal Tower, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Vishal Sharma,Advocate
For the opposite party : S/Sh.Amit Bhatia,Vikas Mahajan,Advocates
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Hardeep Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased two life insurance policies bearing policy No. 02895262 on payment of premium of Rs. 62000/- and second policy bearing No. 02676608 on payment of premium of Rs. 32000/- , from the opposite party. On 28.4.2014 complainant received the policy bonds and came to know the terms and conditions and benefits and the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions/benefits of the policies.. On 29.4.2014 complainant applied for cancellation of the policies within free look period from the receipt of policy documents. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund Rs. 94000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant submitted the proposal forms dated 10.3.2014 and 28.3.2014 proposing for ING Guaranteed Income Insurance Plan . The premium opted by him were Rs. 71,114/- and Rs. 32500/- to be paid annually for terms of 15 years and sum assured under the policy were Rs. 7,16,232/- & Rs. 3,27,210/- for 30 years. After receipt of premiums, the opposite party had issued a policy bearing No. 02876608 and 02895262 to the complainant on 9.4.2014 and 16.4.2014 respectively. The complainant had approached the opposite party within free look period . On receipt of such request, opposite party had duly verified the documents and found that signatures were mismatching in request letter. As such complainant was requested vide letter dated 15.5.2014 asking him to submit the specimen signatures form in order to process the same. Complainant had submitted specimen signatures on 16.1.2015 and as such opposite party had duly processed the request and refunded the amount of Rs. 32,344.91 paise and Rs. 70,872.32 paise through cheque bearing No. 536392 and 536266 dated 13.2.2015 and 19.2.2015 which were duly encashed by the complainant on 24.2.2015 and 27.2.2015 . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6.
4. Opposite parties tendered into evidence documents Ex.OP1,2/1 to Ex.OP1,2/9.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties it is clear that complainant obtained two insurance policies one bearing No. 02895262 on payment of premium of Rs. 62000/- and second policy bearing No. 02676608 on payment of premium of Rs. 32000/- , from the opposite party. The complainant received the policy documents on 28.4.2014. But he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions/benefits of the policies. So he immediately approached the opposite party No.2 on 29.4.2014 i.e. under free look period for the cancellation of the policies and refund of the premium amount. The opposite party wrote letter to the complainant dated 15.5.2014 and 6.6.2014 Ex.OP1,2/4 and Ex.OP1,2/5 asking the complainant that his signatures were mis-matching and the complainant was asked to send his specimen signatures. The complainant submitted his specimen signatures on 6.1.2015 on the prescribed performa Ex.C-4 and C-5, to the opposite party. But inspite of that the opposite party did not refund the amount of premium to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the policy documents were sent to the complainant on 10.3.2014 and 28.3.2014 which were received by the complainant on 25.3.2014 and 28.3.2014 respectively as per documents produced by the complainant himself Ex.C-3 and C-2 respectively. However, on 29.4.2014 within free look period the complainant applied for cancellation of the policy vide free look cancellation request form Ex.C-2 and C-3, but the signatures of the complainant were mis-matching and he was asked to give his specimen signatures on the prescribed performa and the complainant submitted his specimen signatures on 6.1.2015 on the prescribed performa Ex.C-4 and C-5. Resultantly his free look period request for cancellation of the policies was considered and allowed and the complainant was accordingly refunded an amount of Rs.32,344.91 paise and Rs. 70,872.32 paise vide cheques bearing No. 536392 and 536266 dated 13.2.2015 and 19.2.2015 respectively and these cheques were got encashed by the complainant on 24.2.2015 and 27.2.2015. So the complainant has been refunded not only the amount of the premiums but also the other benefits which were not available to the complainant under the aforesaid policies. As such , there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant received the policies in question on 25.4.3014 and 28.4.2-014 respectively and he requested for cancellation of these policies on 29.4.2014 vide free look cancellation request form Ex.C-3 and C-2 respectively. As the signatures of the complainant on free look cancellation request were mis-matching with his signatures on the policies, so he was asked to give his specimen signatures on the prescribed performa and the complainant submitted the specimen signatures on the prescribed performa on 6.1.2015 Ex.C-4 and C-5 . Resultantly his policies were cancelled and the amounts even more than the request in the complaint, were refunded to the complainant i.e. complainant has requested for the refund of Rs. 94000/- only premium amount of both the policies, but opposite party issued two cheques of Rs. 32,344.91 paise and Rs. 70,872.32 paise which were got encashed by the complainant on 24.2.2015. So the complainant has been paid Rs. 1,03,217.32 paise as per terms and conditions of the policy.
9. Resultantly we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant. The complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
6.11.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
